Prof. Willem Hoyng reviews this week’s decisions, focusing on cross-border enforcement challenges, strict confidentiality rules, and the efficiency of settling costs.KEY DECISIONS:🔹 CROSS-BORDER ENFORCEMENT (FUJIFILM v Kodak - Mannheim LD)The Court held (in an obiter dictum) that UPC decisions concerning non-UPC territories (e.g., the UK) are only enforceable after recognition by local courts.Prof. Hoyng’s View: He disagrees with this approach, arguing that it complicates cross-border practice. If the UPC has jurisdiction, its orders should be directly enforceable without requiring secondary recognition proceedings.🔹 CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENTS (EOFlow v Insulet - CoA)The Court of Appeal clarified that marking documents as "Highly Confidential" in the CMS is insufficient to restrict access.The Rule: A request under R. 262A RoP must be filed simultaneously with the document. Without this formal request, the document is immediately accessible and no confidentiality applies.🔹 SETTLEMENT OF COSTS (Bhagat v Oerlikon; 10x Genomics v Curio)Contrasting a protracted dispute over minor costs in 10x Genomics with a swift settlement in Bhagat, Prof. Hoyng encourages practitioners to settle costs amicably.📖 READ THE FULL ANALYSIS:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-06-2026Disclaimer: AI-generated podcast. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.#UPCUnfiltered #UnifiedPatentCourt #PatentLitigation #WillemHoyng #IPLaw #LegalStrategy

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related